Evidence and Conclusions. (believing, perspective, science, Universe)

[sanspeur]

A girl? I'm shocked! No sugar and spice there is there?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by MaryWinstead

I have nothing? The issue here is control of your life! More like your vital functions why you breathe/live in the first place is controlled INVOLUNTARILY. And you have the nerve to say YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE? What a joke. So you can learn to control your heartbeat, FYI genius it is NOT the ONLY involuntary action of your body organs, what about your digestion, your blood cell formation.. and many others. Your blood is renewed automatically, like hair/skin, its lifespan is limited, it has to regenerate regularly, the bone marrow does that for you without you even knowing a thing about it, while you post your know it all foolishness here

1. Welcome aboard! And I'm even gonna give you your first rep point. Remember that after you've read some of mine! Hey; we're all here just for the fun of it, right? (aside from the fact that you're all completely wrong 'ceptin' me....)

We humans are provably at the end of a long LONG line of evolved animals, and one of our very special characteristics is our interesting ability to reason, to ponder our future (which means. pretty much alone in the animal world, we can "scenario model" about what if this versus what if that...). I don't think lobsters do it, or clams, but since we all came from that same original genetic stock, it's simply something that came to be. Like our unique hands, or a fish's unique lateral line sensing system. (We don't have that; we're surely not superior in everything; we're not the ultimate animal that Christians think God made us to be..)

Anyhow, it's not know-it-all nonsense, it's simply stating what we've found. Science works this way:

I say: "Hmmm: I hypothesize that spuds that we all like to eat form up underground on the bottom of a particular plant, once a year. I'll test for that, but I'm going to "PREDICT" that's how it works. Until I do those tests though, I won't make any claims."

The Christian might well say "No. God made them instantly. you know; Instant Mashed Spuds! They will appear like magic in the bowl all hot and ready to eat when I need them for my family's thanksgiving dinner. Insta-Spuds for sure! That's how it works, God Be Praised!"

Then I go out into the field, and I dig under what I think is probably a potato plant. It's early spring, and there's no tubers down there. Hmmm. But I photograph it, measure the size of the plant, etc. etc. and carefully note the location of my test plot of plants.

The Christians say "See! No potatoes ever form under those plants! You didn't find them! God Be Praised!"

Well, a couple of months later, I go back to the same location, and dig up another identical-type plant. Glory be, there's these little proto-potatoes, but they are tiny and hard and not at all like the potatoes we get at the store. From Idaho. [Yum, BTW... Thx, Idahoans!].

The Christians, slightly surprised, nonetheless say "That puny thing? That ain't no spud! This [and they thrust a big ol' Russet into my face...] This is a SPUD! Like God makes for us! Praise The Lord! and stop trying your bad, biased, know-it-all science on us!"

Well, time and digging technology has advanced, predictably, and in the late summer I go back to that same plot, and dig up yet another plant, and...... whaayyyytaaaaminuttte here! Looky looky! A big ol' Russet! In fact, several of them, all attached to he same plant.

Case proven, as far as I'm concerned: Spuds do come from plants, growing there over the annual season, as my original hypothesis PREDICTED. I say "see! IO proved that potatoes come from platns!"

Christians will then, predictably, say "No! You biased your results, and probably put those spuds down there, and lied in your research paper, and anyhow, we don't WANT to believe it, so you're wrong! Go away! Praise Be to The Lord!"

See, if your idea is essentially correct, then then it should have PREDICTABLE consequences. And one very good test then, is to go looking for those consequences as one form of proof that the originating idea is sound as all get-out.

Of course, God, seeing me advancing on the potato plot, shovel in hand, could have thrust them under the ground for me to find, but why? To confuse me, to throw my thinking off track, to embarrass me later when He does choose to show up for once in recorded history? Why?

Well, I suppose you could cling to that one, but there's that theorem [Occam's Razor; look it up and study it if you'd care to educate yourself about this point of logic... just a suggestion mind you...] about the simplest and most plausible answer or explanation being likely the true and factual one, and that the more obtuse, confused, complicated and contradictory ones are likely the fabrication of someone's overly-devout mind.

So, to end this diatribe, my point is, Mary, science is but a tool, but it has it's own built-in checks and balances, and for most things it provides very good and reliable answers. As time goes on, and we explore the minute details of each others hypotheses, or of so-and-so's ideas, or our own late-night brainstorms, scientists the world over delve into the questions with better and better techniques. You may not like the answers, or the direction they are pointing in, but nonetheless, there they are, and they lead us to some pretty reasonable and inescapable conclusions.

And you are always welcome and free to go and check out and re-do the research for yourself. Part of the Scientific Method requires that the researcher provide all the necessary information on how he/she did the work do you can duplicate it. As well, his/her (or your...) results then go out for peer review, where other notable experts who might well disagree get to try to rip his work apart, and trust me, they do exactly that. Keeps us all honest, frankly, and once a study has passed this rigorous test, it's pretty well conclusive.

NOTE: Christian claimants suffer no such internal checks and balances, BTW. Ever. They can make whatever blatantly false claims they so choose, and no-one ever says Boo!. Kinda biases and invalidates their work, huh?]

What then to conclude, if you do just that, and get the same results as the first guy did? What if that means we know we hominids have been here for tens of millions of years? what if it flies in the face of what you personally, but only faith-based, choose to believe? Are you willing to let go then, or do you just call others by nasty names?

Have a good one, and enjoy that rep point!

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by stuckinbalad

No the point of that statement was simply that no matter the evidence presented, there will still be no way to determine who or what caused the first spark, the ignition for lift off...

You have absolutely no way to know this.

You may see it as a spontaneous issue with all the science to back it up, but even if we prove that life is capable of just spontaneously erupting, I will still say God has his hand in it...

This is basically admitting your mind is closed and you're willing to ignore reality to keep it that way. I have no idea why you see this as a good thing.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by stucky

No the point of that statement was simply that no matter the evidence presented, there will still be no way to determine who or what caused the first spark, the ignition for lift off...

KC's accurate and irrefutible retort: You have absolutely no way to know this.


Then, this elegant refutation back from stucky: You may see it as a spontaneous issue with all the science to back it up, but even if we prove that life is capable of just spontaneously erupting, I will still say God has his hand in it...

Ahhhh yessss, and there it is, folk!. No matter what the truth of the matter is, in the end, it's still gotta be Goddunnit.

As KC puts it so well:

quote=KC]This is basically admitting your mind is closed and you're willing to ignore reality to keep it that way. I have no idea why you see this as a good thing.[/quote]

Thinking we were engaging in intellectually honest, open-minded debate is obviously our continuing error. We're apparently too trusting and gullible in assuming that, since there are so many obvious cracks and potentially discussable cracks in their stubborn, ancient mental armor they'd be interested in discussing them. They have literally no room for reconsideration about anything in their fantasies, even the obvious fables and contradictions which so infest their perspective.

I'd suggest all us realists just forget 'em, go for a well-deserved Friday afternoon beer, and leave this hopeless debate where it belongs. I made my point, they haven't meaningfully refuted it, but have simply demonstrated their massive mental inertia.

Trouble with mental inertia is that like a massive freight train, it cannot ever change tracks or stop. It'll just eventually go right off the edge of the cliff.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The scientific method of compiling knowledge is based on rational thought and reason.
The religious method of compiling knowledge is based on divine revelation.

So the question is, which is more reliable way of compiling knowledge, one based on rational thought or one based on divine revelation?

One based on objective analysis of verifiable data, or one based on the subjective interpretation of inner intuition.

"The universe is all that is, all that was and all that ever will be."

I cordially invite you to prove this statement true via the scientific method.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The scientific method of compiling knowledge is based on rational thought and reason.
The religious method of compiling knowledge is based on divine revelation.

So the question is, which is more reliable way of compiling knowledge, one based on rational thought or one based on divine revelation?

One based on objective analysis of verifiable data, or one based on the subjective interpretation of inner intuition.

The question isn't so much, "Which is more reliable way of compiling knowledge...One based on objective analysis of verifiable data, or one based on the subjective interpretation of inner intuition?"

The question is much more..."Which is the VASTLY MORE USEFUL and COMMON way of assessing information and data in a persons ACTUAL LIFE EXPERIENCE?"

Aaaaaaand the answer to THAT would be..."The one based on the instant subjective interpretation of that which is intuitively perceived. Seeing how 99.999% of the decisions you will EVER make in your life will NOT be done by the "objective analysis of verifiable data"...but will be an on-the-spot immediate decision using your intuition, perception, and wisdom."

I've stated this MANY times before: Veeeeeeery little in this world is "absolutely objective". If we waited for "objective determination" and "empirical proof" based on a full application of the "scientific method" before we made a decision or acted on something, we'd hardly ever move.

But, of course, the acknowledgment of the great merit of intuition, perception, and wisdom, to determine what is truth and reality weighs heavily against the Atheist argument of, "No Empirical Proof = No God"...so they will lobby against it with all they've got.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

"The universe is all that is, all that was and all that ever will be."

I cordially invite you to prove this statement true via the scientific method.

Sure, here ya go:

By definition, the universe is all that is, all that was, and all that ever will be. That is what the word "universe" means.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

The question isn't so much, "Which is more reliable way of compiling knowledge...One based on objective analysis of verifiable data, or one based on the subjective interpretation of inner intuition?"

The question is much more..."Which is the VASTLY MORE USEFUL and COMMON way of assessing information and data in a persons ACTUAL LIFE EXPERIENCE?"

Aaaaaaand the answer to THAT would be..."The one based on the instant subjective interpretation of that which is intuitively perceived. Seeing how 99.999% of the decisions you will EVER make in your life will NOT be done by the "objective analysis of verifiable data"...but will be an on-the-spot immediate decision using your intuition, perception, and wisdom."

I've stated this MANY times before: Veeeeeeery little in this world is "absolutely objective". If we waited for "objective determination" and "empirical proof" based on a full application of the "scientific method" before we made a decision or acted on something, we'd hardly ever move.

But, of course, the acknowledgment of the great merit of intuition, perception, and wisdom, to determine what is truth and reality weighs heavily against the Atheist argument of, "No Empirical Proof = No God"...so they will lobby against it with all they've got.

You would agree that intuition is very often wrong, would you not?

For example, if you wanted to find the cure for cancer, would you turn to intuition?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

"The universe is all that is, all that was and all that ever will be."

I cordially invite you to prove this statement true via the scientific method.

Or, I cordially invite you to validate this statement: "In the beginning, God made the heavens and the Earth..."

Originally Posted by GldnRule

If we waited for "objective determination" and "empirical proof" based on a full application of the "scientific method" before we made a decision or acted on something, we'd hardly ever move.

But, of course, the acknowledgment of the great merit of intuition, perception, and wisdom, to determine what is truth and reality weighs heavily against the Atheist argument of, "No Empirical Proof = No God"...so they will lobby against it with all they've got.

Well, that's not quite right, is it, Gldn! It' more like "Empirical Proofs, lots of them, point to No God."

And... it's far more heavily weighted towards an evidentiary objectivity. After all, intuition only leads to common-sense hypotheses. it doesn't stop there, with some unsupported statements. We leave that to the theists.

It's the subsequent heavy lifting we trained scientists do that checks it all out [repeatedly, and then over again, and even multi-disciplinary..], and even if some of the finer sometimes-variable details provide fuel for endless silly arguments about angels dancing on pin-heads, the larger evidence remains. And grows.

And so have we.

Illumination through empiricism. It's good to have that lovely light!

Have a good night, all!

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Well, that's not quite right, is it, Gldn! It' more like "Empirical Proofs, lots of them, point to No God."

And... it's far more heavily weighted towards an evidentiary objectivity. After all, intuition only leads to common-sense hypotheses. it doesn't stop there, with some unsupported statements. We leave that to the theists.

It's the subsequent heavy lifting we trained scientists do that checks it all out [repeatedly, and then over again, and even multi-disciplinary..], and even if some of the finer sometimes-variable details provide fuel for endless silly arguments about angels dancing on pin-heads, the larger evidence remains. And grows.

And so have we.

Illumination through empiricism. It's good to have that lovely light!

Have a good night, all!

As usual...you present a reasonable argument.

We just see the same thing...and come to a different conclusion.

I see those "lots of empirical proofs"...that you view as "pointing to No God"...as "the essence of God". Though, those "lots of empirical proofs" do well at debunking many of the obviously erroneous beliefs that are based on jacked up stories that were inserted into ancient writings...some of which have to do with "beliefs about" God.

I do give the utmost credit to the scientific community for figuring out all that they have figured out...and the way they throughly verify their work through their extremely reliable methods is most impressive. Also, the way you gain knowledge exponentionally...using existing discoveries as a springboard...is amazing to me. Major props on the great job you guys do "illuminating" the details of the creation and essence of God!

Only 5 more minutes to closing...Yeah!